Lessons learned and what comes next.
The rise and fall in the U.S of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) has left a lasting impression on capital markets, reshaping investor sentiment and regulatory approaches. SPACs, once the darling of the capital markets and heralded as an innovative alternative to traditional initial public offerings (IPO), experienced a surge in activity, particularly between 2020 and 2021, as low interest rates, ample liquidity and speculative fervour drove demand. However, as market conditions tightened and regulatory scrutiny increased, many SPACs struggled to deliver on their promises, leading to a sharp decline in their popularity and performance.
In the U.S, SPACs emerged as a mechanism for taking private companies public through a reverse merger with a cashed up publicly listed shell company, bypassing the traditional IPO process. The structure allowed for faster market entry and provided sponsors with significant financial incentives. At their peak, SPACs attracted billions in capital, with high-profile investors and celebrities lending credibility to the trend. Their appeal was based on the flexibility they offered, allowing target companies to access public markets without the rigorous disclosures and regulatory burdens associated with traditional IPOs. Investors were drawn to the model, enticed by the potential for early access to high-growth companies and the ability to capitalize on favourable deal terms negotiated by experienced sponsors and investment banks.
Despite their initial success, the underlying risks of SPACs soon became apparent. Many deals were rushed, often with aggressive revenue projections and unproven business models that failed to materialize. Unlike traditional IPOs, where companies undergo extensive scrutiny from investment banks, regulatory bodies and institutional investors, SPAC mergers allowed companies to go public with less financial vetting. Retail and institutional investors who had been drawn in by the speculative upside found themselves holding shares in companies that were arguably not ready for public scrutiny. As interest rates began rising and economic conditions deteriorated, the valuations of many SPAC-backed firms fell, leading to significant losses. High-profile failures, including companies that struggled with execution post-merger or were later revealed to have overstated their business prospects, further eroded confidence in the SPAC model.
Regulatory bodies in the U.S, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), responded with heightened scrutiny, introducing new disclosure requirements and tightening rules around forward-looking statements. The increased oversight further dampened investor enthusiasm, as SPAC sponsors faced greater accountability and legal risks. New regulations sought to impose greater transparency by requiring more detailed financial disclosures and limiting the ability of SPACs to make speculative growth projections. The SEC also introduced measures to ensure that SPAC sponsors had more skin in the game, reducing the potential for misaligned incentives where sponsors could profit even if the SPAC ultimately failed.
The fallout from the SPAC collapse has raised important lessons for investors and market participants. One of the most significant takeaways is the necessity of robust due diligence. Many SPAC deals were driven by timing and momentum rather than fundamental analysis, leading to poor investment outcomes. Investors are now more cautious, prioritizing financial transparency, operational maturity, and sustainable business models over speculative growth narratives. This shift has led to a renewed focus on fundamental investing, where thorough financial assessments and due diligence play a more critical role than short-term hype.
The Australian market has observed the SPAC trend with interest but has not experienced the same level of activity due to structural and regulatory differences. Unlike the U.S, Australia does not have a SPAC framework with the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) effectively prohibiting the Australian equivalent (a cashbox company) in the late 1980’s. Instead, reverse takeovers (RTOs) or back door listings have been the alternative method for bringing private companies to market. While similar in concept, RTOs require more stringent financial disclosures and regulatory approvals (often including shareholder meetings and a detailed Information Memorandum and a subsequent prospectus), reducing the likelihood of speculative excess. Where the ASX shell company has been suspended from trading, it is not unusual for the RTO process to be more complex than a traditional IPO, which serves as an additional disincentive.
Additionally, Australian regulators have traditionally been more conservative and risk-averse when it comes to allowing novel financial innovations that could increase market volatility or reduce investor protections.
The broader lessons from the rise and fall of SPACs are relevant to the local Australian market. The importance of strong corporate governance, realistic financial projections and investor protection remain paramount in any capital-raising environment. The ASX’s cautious stance on cashbox companies/SPACs has likely shielded Australian investors from some of the excesses seen in the U.S market, but the focus on ensuring transparency in alternative listing mechanisms remains critical.
However, given the decline in Australia of IPOs there is merit in re-examining the potential role that a carefully regulated cashbox regime could play in the context of providing a boost to ASX new listings and the public markets specifically and, more generally, the Australian capital markets. There has been some discussion in Australia about whether a regulated cashbox framework could be beneficial, particularly for the tech and emerging industries sectors, which have struggled with access to public markets. However, given the lessons learned from the SPAC boom in the U.S, any implementation would likely involve stricter investor protections and regulatory oversight.
Looking ahead, the SPAC model is unlikely to disappear entirely but will likely evolve under stricter regulatory oversight. Market participants have already begun exploring refinements to the structure, including higher sponsor commitments, improved due diligence processes and stronger investor protections. Some SPAC sponsors have sought to rebuild investor trust by focusing on industries with more stable growth trajectories, such as infrastructure, healthcare and renewable energy, rather than highly speculative tech ventures. Additionally, some institutional investors are re-engaging with SPACs under the condition that there are more stringent governance measures in place and that management teams demonstrate a clear pathway to profitability.
The aftermath of the SPAC cycle serves as a cautionary tale for both investors and regulators, emphasizing the need for measured risk assessment and responsible capital allocation. While SPACs have provided an innovative alternative to the IPO process, their mixed performance underscores the necessity of balancing financial innovation with investor protections.
As markets continue to evolve, the lessons learned from the SPAC cycle will shape future approaches to public listings and the possibility of an Australian cashbox regime, ensuring that innovation in financial markets is balanced with investor protection and long-term value creation. For investors, the key takeaway is to remain diligent, sceptical of overly optimistic projections and mindful of structural incentives that may not always align with long-term value creation. The financial landscape continues to shift and while alternative pathways to public markets will persist, the approach to them must be far more measured and disciplined than during the height of the SPAC mania.
PrimaryMarkets
For companies that are not listed on the stock exchange, the PrimaryMarkets trading Platform is an ideal way to facilitate the off-market sale of shares in your company.
PrimaryMarkets is a flexible and evolving Platform that responds in real time to an ever-changing investment environment. In doing so, it provides sophisticated investors with access to companies that are shaping the future in a wide variety of industries and sectors. We provide access to opportunities previously only accessible to institutional investors. In addition to trading, PrimaryMarkets helps companies raise capital from our global investor database.
PrimaryMarkets exemplifies how innovation can transform the way we invest, trade and raise capital by breaking down traditional barriers, providing liquidity solutions and promoting transparency.
As the Platform continues to grow and evolve, it promises to unlock even more opportunities for investors and companies shaping the future of economies.